A Rejoinder to “The libertarian case for Rand Paul”

First and foremost I am obligated, by my intellectual debt, to give thanks to Dr. Walter “The Moderate” Block. In his tome against the Sovietized system of roads, The Privatization of Roads & Highways, he showed me that my passionate attachment to State roads was equivalent to a passionate attachment to State production of bread. I shuddered. And with depoliticized roads, what can’t be depoliticized?

Secondly, I must confess that in writing the title to this brief rejoinder, I did engage in a smidgen of click bait. I agree with 99.9999% of Dr. Block’s defense of Senator Rand Paul. But, we are not here to agree about everything. Let’s look at the text in question.

Yet, some libertarians are so disappointed in Rand that they have publicly stated they would vote for Hillary rather than him. This, surely, is pique, not rationality. This is the case for preferring Baddie to Goodie. This is psychological perturbation, not sensible libertarian strategy. This is barking madness.

Do I think Rand Paul running for POTUS is a net positive? Yes. Would I be delighted if he became POTUS? Yes. Then, where the bloody hell is the point of contention? Dr. Block’s approach to presidential politics is a 180 degree turn from his position on the roads. Dr. Block says that public-private partnerships with roads are harmful because they give the illusion of market processes, which slows down the failure of the nationalized production of roads. What is a president, if not the central figure of the nationalized production of security and law? If it is better that the system of roads crashes on the watch of the current rulers, then it also is better for the security and law production of the U.S. to crash under their watch. If not, then incrementalism in road production is a net positive. If the former is true, vote Clinton. If the latter is true, vote Paul.

This has further implications for whether or not libertarians should advocate the abolition of drug laws without the abolition of the State monopoly on law and security production, but I will put that issue aside for now as your mind masticates on it.

I do not know which strategic position is superior, but I have qualms with one being called ‘pique’, ‘not rationality’, ‘psychological perturbation’, ‘barking madness’, and ‘not sensible’ without valid and sound argumentation. Maybe I’m too ecumenical.

The point that compromising on principles in elections is strategically unsound has been made before, of course. But I’ve never heard it framed in this particular way before, and I think it’s ingenious. Thanks for this. I’ll be sure to use it in the future.